Jansen's Future in Doubt?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, definitely not a paycut. I don't know why you're saying that?

He was due just over $8 million in base salary over 2007 and 2008. I haven't seen the terms, but my guess is his signing bonus with this extension will be in that range ($8 million or so). He'll then have vet minimum salaries for the first two or three years, and then the contract will be largely backloaded.

It's probably one of those 5 year deals that are only supposed to last 3 years before they're either restructured or he's let go. But it's definitely not a paycut.

His current deal was due to pay him 4.25 and 4.75 in salary for 07 and 08. His cap number was 5.85 and 6.35 respectively. The new deal averages 4.4 and I would suspect that it is a typical large bonus/backloaded deal so he will never see the big salaries in the contract. I have no idea what the numbers are but I would expect a salary of 1 or two million for the first two years so he did take a paycut from a salary perspective.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

His current deal was due to pay him 4.25 and 4.75 in salary for 07 and 08. His cap number was 5.85 and 6.35 respectively. The new deal averages 4.4 and I would suspect that it is a typical large bonus/backloaded deal so he will never see the big salaries in the contract. I have no idea what the numbers are but I would expect a salary of 1 or two million for the first two years so he did take a paycut from a salary perspective.

That's the whole point of an extension/restructure - Lower the salary (which is the hard number directly applicable to the cap) by converting it to signing bonus. As Schneed said, he is probably getting vet minimum these first couple years. To say he is taking a "pay cut" by restructuring and refering only to the salary is akin to saying that, because the sun is out, there will be light. Or, in a more simplistic response - Duhhh!!

In fact, if this had been a straight restructure, his "salary" would have been cut by about 3 million as that would have been converted to bonus money and the bonus money then prorated over the remaining contract period. By signing the extension, however, the bonus money gets prorated over a longer period then if he done a straight restructure. Under the straight restructure, and w/out looking a the cap sheets, I expect their would not have been much cap relief.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

That's the whole point of an extension/restructure - Lower the salary (which is the hard number directly applicable to the cap) by converting it to signing bonus. As Schneed said, he is probably getting vet minimum these first couple years. To say he is taking a "pay cut" by restructuring and refering only to the salary is akin to saying that, because the sun is out, there will be light. Or, in a more simplistic response - Duhhh!!

In fact, if this had been a straight restructure, his "salary" would have been cut by about 3 million as that would have been converted to bonus money and the bonus money then prorated over the remaining contract period. By signing the extension, however, the bonus money gets prorated over a longer period then if he done a straight restructure. Under the straight restructure, and w/out looking a the cap sheets, I expect their would not have been much cap relief.

Thank you for the clarification, Joe Mendes, but I think that most of the people on the site (including me) understand why the team restructures and extends. Of course restructuring the current deal has nothing to do with this scenario and your hypothetical restructuring would be an idiotic move as it would leave the Redskins without a right tackle and with a 4.6 million dollar dead cap hit for '08. "Duhhh!!"

My original comment was that Jansen took a pay cut (meaning he took less money to help out the team). That is a fairly open ended statement so I can understand why Schneed would disagree. Here is the scenario from my perspective:

Jansen was scheduled to make $5.85 MM and $6.35 MM respectively in 2007 and 2008 (if they kept him). Obviously, the team felt that those salaries are too high.

Jansen's last deal was effectively 4 years for $15.428 or $3.86 million per year (pretty reasonable actually).

For argument's sake let's say his new contract was a straight line deal or $4.6M per year. Is that a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35, Yes. Is it a paycut from the context of his old deal, No (but it depends on your viewpoint).

The new deal pays 10 for a bonus. That is a base of 2.2 over 5 years and he gets the minimum for the first two (670M) or an average of 2.87 per year. Well, you don't have to be JoeRedskin to figure out that 2.87 is a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35. Now, the real question is what the salary amount is in years 3 -5. If they in fact pay the league minimum for 1 and 2 that leaves 10.66MM of salary to allocate over 3 years. I am guessing the salaries will be approximately 3 million in year 3, 3.66 million in year 4 and 4 million in year 5. If they keep him for 3 years the effective contract will be approximately 3 years for $ 14.34MM or 4.78 per year.

Is he getting more than he did in his old deal? Yes. Is it less than 5.85 and 6.35? Obviously. Is that a "pay cut". I would say that a difference of 2.98MM and 3.48MM respectively is but I can also see what Schneed is looking at as well. At the end of the day if he signs a deal that lets them pay him the veteran minimum in '07 and '08 that is a huge help to the team with the cap moving higher and higher over time.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Thank you for the clarification, Joe Mendes, but I think that most of the people on the site (including me) understand why the team restructures and extends. Of course restructuring the current deal has nothing to do with this scenario and your hypothetical restructuring would be an idiotic move as it would leave the Redskins without a right tackle and with a 4.6 million dollar dead cap hit for '08. "Duhhh!!"

My original comment was that Jansen took a pay cut (meaning he took less money to help out the team). That is a fairly open ended statement so I can understand why Schneed would disagree. Here is the scenario from my perspective:

Jansen was scheduled to make $5.85 MM and $6.35 MM respectively in 2007 and 2008 (if they kept him). Obviously, the team felt that those salaries are too high.

Jansen's last deal was effectively 4 years for $15.428 or $3.86 million per year (pretty reasonable actually).

For argument's sake let's say his new contract was a straight line deal or $4.6M per year. Is that a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35, Yes. Is it a paycut from the context of his old deal, No (but it depends on your viewpoint).

The new deal pays 10 for a bonus. That is a base of 2.2 over 5 years and he gets the minimum for the first two (670M) or an average of 2.87 per year. Well, you don't have to be JoeRedskin to figure out that 2.87 is a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35. Now, the real question is what the salary amount is in years 3 -5. If they in fact pay the league minimum for 1 and 2 that leaves 10.66MM of salary to allocate over 3 years. I am guessing the salaries will be approximately 3 million in year 3, 3.66 million in year 4 and 4 million in year 5. If they keep him for 3 years the effective contract will be approximately 3 years for $ 14.34MM or 4.78 per year.

Is he getting more than he did in his old deal? Yes. Is it less than 5.85 and 6.35? Obviously. Is that a "pay cut". I would say that a difference of 2.98MM and 3.48MM respectively is but I can also see what Schneed is looking at as well. At the end of the day if he signs a deal that lets them pay him the veteran minimum in '07 and '08 that is a huge help to the team with the cap moving higher and higher over time.

I've bolded the statements showing where your reasoning is off. Jansen's CAP NUMBER was 5.85 and 6.35 in 2008. That does not mean he was going to get paid that much. Included in those numbers is the signing bonus he received when he first signed the deal 3 or 4 years ago. He was only scheduled to make somewhere between 4 and 5 million in base salary each of 2007 and 2008. So instead of making something like $9 million over those two years, he's now making $10 million in the signing bonus, plus another $500K in vet minimum salaries each year.

It's a pay raise.

Don't get cap numbers confused with cash flows.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I've bolded the statements showing where your reasoning is off. Jansen's CAP NUMBER was 5.85 and 6.35 in 2008. That does not mean he was going to get paid that much. Included in those numbers is the signing bonus he received when he first signed the deal 3 or 4 years ago. He was only scheduled to make somewhere between 4 and 5 million in base salary each of 2007 and 2008. So instead of making something like $9 million over those two years, he's now making $10 million in the signing bonus, plus another $500K in vet minimum salaries each year.

It's a pay raise.

Don't get cap numbers confused with cash flows.

Jansen's CAP NUMBER was 5.85 and 6.35 in 2008. That does not mean he was going to get paid that much.

If they had not extended and they kept him on the roster that was how much he would have been paid. He has already received the bonuses of 1.65 and 1.65. If they had not touched his deal he would have received salary of 4.25 in '07 and 4.75 in '08. Just because he received the bonus in a lump sum up front doesn't mean that the cap number isn't what they are paid.

Cash flow is irrelevant because in most cases the bonuses are paid up front. Going purely on cash flow, Jansen will receive a check for 10.67 this year (depending on how the bonuses are structured) but his cap number could be close to a minimum salary if that is how they want it. Going by cash flow he will probably only receive 670 thousand next year. Does that mean he took a pay cut from year one? No.

The only number that matters is the guaranteed money. That is why every year some people claim that the Redskins are in cap hell and next thing you know Redskin 1 is flying in 5 free agents.

I view it as a paycut because he was under contract to make a total of 9 million in salary for '07 and '08 and he will never see that money. That is how the Redskins get away with it year in and out. They give the player up front money that they can spread out over several years and then cut the player before the big salaries hit. The smaller market teams do not have the cash to give big bonuses and backloaded contracts. That was one of the stumbling blocks between the owners in the CBA.

The key to the Redskins philosophy is an increasing cap number and an extremely profitable team. As long as those trends continue, they can continue to continue the status quo.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

If they had not extended and they kept him on the roster that was how much he would have been paid. He has already received the bonuses of 1.65 and 1.65. If they had not touched his deal he would have received salary of 4.25 in '07 and 4.75 in '08. Just because he received the bonus in a lump sum up front doesn't mean that the cap number isn't what they are paid.

Wrong. He would have been paid $9 million over the next two years. It's quite simple. What Jansen has been paid in 2006 and years prior is now irrelevant. Those years have come and gone. What matters is what he's going to be paid FROM NOW ON. Was scheduled for $9 million, and instead he'll make $11 million in the next two years.

But if you want, I'll indulge you and factor in what he previously made:

Even if you just want to look at guaranteed money only, this is still a boost. His old contract was a 6 year deal with a $7.5 million signing bonus. He played only 4 years of the contract. So $7.5 million divided by 4, that's $1.875 million per year. This new contract is a 5 year deal with a $10 million bonus, or $2 million per season (and that's IF he plays out the whole contract, which he likely won't).

Or we can evaluate what Jansen made (bonus and salary) in his 4 years under his old contract, and divide by four. He had the $7.5 million bonus, and made another $7 million in base salaries over that time. Total income was $14.5 million, divided by 4 years, that's $3.625 million per season. Under this 5 year extension, total contract value is $23 million over 5 years, or $4.6 million per season. A pay increase. He might never see the last two years of this deal. In that case it would be a 3 year deal, allocating the $10 million signing bonus, that would be $3.3 million per year in bonus alone. Add on vet minimum base salaries on top of that, at $700K each year, that's $4 million per season. Still greater than the $3.625 million he actually collected each season under his old contract.

It's a pay raise no matter how you look at it.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Thank you for the clarification, Joe Mendes, but I think that most of the people on the site (including me) understand why the team restructures and extends. Of course restructuring the current deal has nothing to do with this scenario and your hypothetical restructuring would be an idiotic move as it would leave the Redskins without a right tackle and with a 4.6 million dollar dead cap hit for '08. "Duhhh!!"

My original comment was that Jansen took a pay cut (meaning he took less money to help out the team). That is a fairly open ended statement so I can understand why Schneed would disagree. Here is the scenario from my perspective:

Jansen was scheduled to make $5.85 MM and $6.35 MM respectively in 2007 and 2008 (if they kept him). Obviously, the team felt that those salaries are too high.

...

Is he getting more than he did in his old deal? Yes. Is it less than 5.85 and 6.35? Obviously. Is that a "pay cut". I would say that a difference of 2.98MM and 3.48MM respectively is but I can also see what Schneed is looking at as well. At the end of the day if he signs a deal that lets them pay him the veteran minimum in '07 and '08 that is a huge help to the team with the cap moving higher and higher over time.

As schneed has pointed out, you're looking at cash flow - not salary (which seems to me to contradict your statement that you get the purpose of restructuring). As for the everyone getting it - so sorry, didn't mean to intrude upon your brilliance. It just seemed to me that you were indicating that Jansen was somehow taking less money under the new deal than with the extension which simply does not follow. No need to get belligerent.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Thank you for the clarification, Joe Mendes, but I think that most of the people on the site (including me) understand why the team restructures and extends. Of course restructuring the current deal has nothing to do with this scenario and your hypothetical restructuring would be an idiotic move as it would leave the Redskins without a right tackle and with a 4.6 million dollar dead cap hit for '08. "Duhhh!!"

My original comment was that Jansen took a pay cut (meaning he took less money to help out the team). That is a fairly open ended statement so I can understand why Schneed would disagree. Here is the scenario from my perspective:

Jansen was scheduled to make $5.85 MM and $6.35 MM respectively in 2007 and 2008 (if they kept him). Obviously, the team felt that those salaries are too high.

Jansen's last deal was effectively 4 years for $15.428 or $3.86 million per year (pretty reasonable actually).

For argument's sake let's say his new contract was a straight line deal or $4.6M per year. Is that a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35, Yes. Is it a paycut from the context of his old deal, No (but it depends on your viewpoint).

The new deal pays 10 for a bonus. That is a base of 2.2 over 5 years and he gets the minimum for the first two (670M) or an average of 2.87 per year. Well, you don't have to be JoeRedskin to figure out that 2.87 is a paycut from 5.85 and 6.35. Now, the real question is what the salary amount is in years 3 -5. If they in fact pay the league minimum for 1 and 2 that leaves 10.66MM of salary to allocate over 3 years. I am guessing the salaries will be approximately 3 million in year 3, 3.66 million in year 4 and 4 million in year 5. If they keep him for 3 years the effective contract will be approximately 3 years for $ 14.34MM or 4.78 per year.

Is he getting more than he did in his old deal? Yes. Is it less than 5.85 and 6.35? Obviously. Is that a "pay cut". I would say that a difference of 2.98MM and 3.48MM respectively is but I can also see what Schneed is looking at as well. At the end of the day if he signs a deal that lets them pay him the veteran minimum in '07 and '08 that is a huge help to the team with the cap moving higher and higher over time.

What ever happened to Joe Mendes? Didn't he get the boot becasue he was standing up to Danny Boi and Vinny?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

What ever happened to Joe Mendes? Didn't he get the boot becasue he was standing up to Danny Boi and Vinny?

I saw some article on him. I thought he quit because he was exhausted. If I was the Redskins cap guy, I would be exhausted too...

[SmootSmack]

this kid was our cap guru? Damn!!

Seriously though, I think he's a consultant now. When he "quit" it really looked like someone, Beathard?, might have been coming on board. That, obviously, never happened

[Beemnseven]

Glad to see LaCanfora was 100% WRONG with his red flags regarding Jansen.